Something big is happening in Washington right now when it comes to the social contract around work.

The economic recovery package pushed by President Barack Obama that is currently moving through Congress isn’t just about stimulating short-term demand and investing in longer-term goals like better schools and infrastructure. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also promises to renew the U.S. safety net—in a way that should help both employers and employees.

In this blog, I’ve often criticized the current U.S. system of unemployment insurance and other protections for workers knocked off the employment ladder. Similar concerns have been raised by prominent economists, labor advocates and a few business leaders.
 
Some of us have pointed out that a recession is the perfect time to shore up the safety net, in part because heftier unemployment payments reportedly have a big bang for their buck in sparking economic activity.

It appears President Obama and congressional leaders have come to see the same light.

The $800-billion-plus legislation at hand includes incentives for states to close some major holes in unemployment insurance coverage by making it easier for low-wage and part-time workers to get benefits, for example. It also temporarily boosts the skimpy level of U.S. benefits by $25 per week and continues the current extended unemployment benefits program—which provides up to 33 weeks of extended benefits—through 2009.

As important, the sweeping bill includes a number of provisions to help the laid-off get or retain health insurance, according to a report Wednesday, January 28, in The New York Times.

For one thing, it would allow workers receiving unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the health program for low-income people. There’s also a provision whereby the federal government would pay 65 percent of COBRA insurance premiums for a year for out-of-work individuals wanting to continue their group health coverage.

All of these changes combined would do a lot to give U.S. workers a measure of economic security. Such stability has been eroding during the past decade for Americans amid shrinking health care and retirement benefits, stagnant wages and growing layoff risks.

The trends have enabled U.S. firms to be more nimble and profitable. But growing financial anxiety among U.S. workers has contributed to a volatile economic climate and to growing skepticism about globalization.

With more out-of-work Americans receiving more generous unemployment checks and more of them being able to obtain health care, employers themselves stand to benefit. Existing employees will be less stressed about losing their jobs, and therefore more productive. And the level of consumer demand should rise as the jobless have more cash to spend.

To be sure, there is something nerve-racking about pushing through such significant changes—even if temporary—in such short time and without extensive hearings.

And critics raise valid concerns about some of these proposals. According to The New York Times, for example, Republicans wanted to prevent wealthy people from getting the COBRA help or Medicaid.

Democrat Henry Waxman reportedly countered that means-testing would slow down the assistance. And indeed, speed is of the essence. Business are retrenching and slashing jobs by the tens of thousands. Consumer confidence is at a historic low. The country is effectively hurtling toward an economic abyss.

Just as we encourage businesses to innovate themselves out of tough times, shouldn’t we let government do the same thing in the form of serious stimulus spending and an updated social contract? In response to the biggest economic crisis in a generation, shouldn’t Washington go large?

Employer-employee bonds are being tested just about everywhere these days, as companies lay off people, freeze wages and take other steps to cope with a collapsing economy.

But there are some places where the affection workers have for their workplace is particularly lacking.

Glassdoor.com, a Web site where employees can post information about their employer anonymously, recently compiled a list of least-loved companies based on employee ratings.

Anonymous ratings by employees always should be viewed with some skepticism. But Glassdoor.com’s list of the 50 employers with the lowest employee satisfaction ratings includes some names already known for questionable workplace cultures. Among them is Circuit City, which my editor, John Hollon, has blasted for axing experienced workers in a cost-cutting frenzy.

Far worse than Circuit City, according to the Glassdoor.com report, is United Airlines, which ranked as the company with the second-lowest level of employee satisfaction. This performance by United dovetails with the uneven customer service I just experienced on United over the holidays.

And it is in keeping with the way United finished 17th out of 19 airlines in terms of complaints per 100,000 enplanements during October.

Some of the winners (losers?) on the list were firms that had not come on my radar screen previously as either a good or bad employer. They include transportation services outfit DHL Express—ranked as lowest in customer satisfaction—and retailers RadioShack and Office Depot.

One particularly surprising name was eBay. After all, the online auction giant ranked 68th on Fortune’s 2008 Best Companies to Work For list. On the other hand, eBay in October announced plans to cut its global workforce by about 10 percent, affecting about 1,000 employees in addition to several hundred temporary workers.

One Glassdoor.com reviewer said of the firm, “eBay attracts a lot of great people, then the company culture beats them down and they leave within a couple of years.”

Firms on Glassdoor.com’s list would be wise to take the ranking seriously—even just to realize that it raises concerns about their reputations.

And for those of us at employers not on the list, the ranking of the least-liked places offers a kind of cheap schadenfreude. Even if things aren’t great at our companies in these dark days, we can take some solace that things seem to be worse somewhere else.